M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) This appeal filed under Sec. 68(1) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for brevity, "the Act"), is directed against order dated November 14, 2006/November 28, 2006, passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal (Punjab) (for brevity, "the Tribunal"), in Appeal No. 35 of 2006 -07 (VAT). The appellant is a registered dealer under the Act, engaged in the business of sale and purchase of various goods including electrical and motor parts. It holds RC No. 0318114775 with the assessing authority, Patiala, with its head office at Manimajra. It is claimed that the appellant has its branches at Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh and that it is a consignment agent for M/s. Phoenix Lamps Limited, Noida. A copy of the consignee agreement has been placed on record as annexure A1.
(2.) On July 29, 2005, a vehicle bearing registration No. CH -03 -N -0403, carrying motor parts from Zirakpur to Panchkula was intercepted and checked by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Mobile Wing, Chandigarh, along with his supporting staff under Sec. 51 of the Act. The driver of the vehicle produced some documents and on scrutiny it was observed that the goods were not covered with proper and genuine documents. Accordingly, the appellant was called upon to appear before the officer -in -charge. After due contest, the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Mobile Wing, Chandigarh, vide his order dated August 12, 2005, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,39,879, which is 50 per cent of the total value of the goods as provided by Sec. 51(7)(c) of the Act.
(3.) The appellant filed an appeal against the aforementioned order before the Joint Director (Enforcement), Patiala Division, Patiala. The appeal was dismissed by observing that Sec. 51(2) of the Act requires that goods under transportation must be accompanied by proper and genuine documents whereas no bills of sale in the present case were produced at the time of checking. The consignment was being carried without documents. It was further held that avoidance of furnishing of documents created strong suspicion regarding genuineness of the transaction and that the documents produced later on after detection could not be considered. Accordingly, the penalty imposed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, vide his order dated August 12, 2005, was upheld and the appeal of the appellant was dismissed on January 31, 2006 (P10).;